If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, is Brady the greatest QB of all ti (1 Viewer)

[ivnabru]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Tom Brady was along for the ride in his early superbowl success. It was like that for Big Ben. They had a system, and they didnt ask much of Brady.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Tom Brady was the 2001 Super Bowl MVPTom Brady was the 2003 Super Bowl MVPYou don't win those awards if you're "along for the ride". Big Ben hasn't won that award even once.

2001 he was 16/27 for 145 and a touchdown. Thats a game manager. The MVP should have went to the coach but thats not possible

Brady getting the MVP for that first Super Bowl was an utter sham. But the argument could be made that he should have gotten it for the SB win over Philly, so he'd still have two. That aside, he is already in the conversation, win or lose in 13 days, but winning would obviously make the argument for him stronger. But the odd thing is, despite all of his success, Brady's performances in conference championship games and Super Bowls are not overly impressive. 13 touchdowns and 8 interceptions in the 10 games combined. Meanwhile, Montana had 21 touchdowns and 6 interceptions in the 10 conference games and Super Bowls he played in. So, while Brady might be neck and neck with Montana, Montana's performances in the biggest games deep in the playoffs were collectively far better than Brady's have been. How many title games or Super Bowls did you say, "The 49ers won in spite of Montana's play?" None. But with Brady, you can say that about several games, and he had zero contribution to the 2001 AFC title game win over Pittsburgh (0 offensive points produced before leaving with an injury late in the first half).

 

[Smack Tripper]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles.

Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Don't forget the Redskins, who were quite the beasts back then as well. And Spygate definitely takes a bit of shine off of those three Patriots Super Bowl wins, but if they can finally win one post-Spygate, that will be significant.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Don't forget the Redskins, who were quite the beasts back then as well. And Spygate definitely takes a bit of shine off of those three Patriots Super Bowl wins, but if they can finally win one post-Spygate, that will be significant.

Absolutely. In all honesty, there was a lot of talent in the NFL then. I feel certain secondary teams would have dominated Brady's heyday, be it the Dolphins, the Broncos or even teams like the Browns, Jets and Eagles in certain seasons.

 

[Devine Intervention]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

 

[Tom Servo]

Montana never lost a Superbowl.

Neither did Jim Plunkett.Is that the deciding factor for GOAT?

When you go to four of them, yes.Oh, and Montana was never an accomplice to a spygate.

Nice to see that this only took 7 posts.

 

[gianmarco]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Don't forget the Redskins, who were quite the beasts back then as well. And Spygate definitely takes a bit of shine off of those three Patriots Super Bowl wins, but if they can finally win one post-Spygate, that will be significant.

Absolutely. In all honesty, there was a lot of talent in the NFL then. I feel certain secondary teams would have dominated Brady's heyday, be it the Dolphins, the Broncos or even teams like the Browns, Jets and Eagles in certain seasons.

That was also before the salary cap era and players stayed on teams for a longer period of time and were able to remain together as a unit. Much more difficult to do that nowadays.

 

[dparker713]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Superbowls are a team accomplishment. They are not an individual achievement and are merely a factor when determining greatness of a QB.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised by that comment. Being in the most Super Bowls automatically makes you the greatest? Seems strange. I think it's one of a number of elements going into the discussion. That said, Brady is already in the discussion for GOAT IMO, and if he wins this one it only helps his cause. But I don't ever think there will be a consensus GOAT QB like there is (for the most part) with Jerry Rice as a WR.

I don't necessarily think Brady is the GOAT at QB. But I still am interested to discuss active QBs that have better overall resumes than Tom Brady combining the entire enchilada of team accomplishments, win-loss records, SBs, honors, awards, stats, records, etc.Peyton may have been the better pure passer, but he does not stack up to Brady in some other areas. Rodgers may be the better QB at this very moment, but he too falls short in other areas. IMO, those are the only two "active" candidates unless there are players that I am missing or who are too young to really evaluate.

We learned this season that Peyton Manning is the most valuable player in the game and second place isn't close.

 

[ivnabru]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

 

[David Yudkin]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won 10 games.

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

No one is disputing that the Colts were awful without Manning. That still doesn't mean he has a better career resume than Brady. The fact that the Pats were better prepared for a mission critical QB injury than IND was also doesn't really change things. We are not comparing Cassel to Painter.I think overall as a passer Manning has been better than Brady. But how many years are people going to suggest that Manning over his career has not been surrounded with top tier talent or that the Pats defense has been phenomenal while the Colts was deplorable. Yes, the early year's of Brady's tenure in NE had solid defenses when the Colts did not. In the middle years, the Colts had better defenses than the Patriots did. In recent years, the Patriots defense hasn't been that great and overall has been below average.

Ignoring both Brady's and Manning's rookie seasons (where Brady threw 1 pass), here is the average totals for the defenses of both QBs. (For NE, 2001-2011 excluding 2008 when Brady didn't play. For IND, 1999-2010 excluding 2011 when Manning didn't play):

PPG Y/G Y/PIND 20.8 325.5 5.24NE 18.2 328.4 5.23On a per play basis, there is almost no difference over all those years in terms of how much each team allowed per play. There is also very little difference in how many yards each defense allowed on average per game. The only difference is roughly 2.5 points the Pats allowed per game, and while I can't prove it, I would guess that that stems from NE playing way more games outdoors than indoors (more turnovers, bad weather, more missed kicks, etc.).Until Moss and Welker showed up, Brady did not come close to the receiving corps that Manning had (Brady's first 6 years). Brady played with Moss for 2 seasons. Welker has been lights out, but the rest of the Pats WRs haven't exactly been well represented in Honolulu. Now the Pats have morphed into a TE centric offense, but again, his other wide receivers not named Welker have been mostly invisible.

Manning also benefitted from playing in 111 indoor games to only 14 for Brady. How much of an advantage that gave Manning is almost impossible to calulate, but it certainly is a lot easier playing indoor home game than slugging it out in the elements in NE.

 

[David Yudkin]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

Again, the fact that the Patriots were better prepared for a major catastrophe at QB while the Colts were not isn't Brady's fault. From all I have seen, Manning so hogged practices that his backups over the years were truly clipboard holders. Is it Brady's fault that Cassel was a better back up than Painter was? Was it Painter's fault that Peyton audibled so many times that the Colts barely ran the play as called? You can't expect the same results from back ups who neither practice nor get game experience.Yes, Brady is a system quarterback . . . because they developed an offensive system that he can run very well. But does anyone really think that Brady would not have done well on another team and another system?

 

[Silver & Black]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

 

[Ghost Rider]

It also didn't help the Colts season that Caldwell is a clueless dope, while Belichick obviously knows what he is doing up there in Foxboro.

 

[David Yudkin]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

 

[Devine Intervention]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

Again, the fact that the Patriots were better prepared for a major catastrophe at QB while the Colts were not isn't Brady's fault. From all I have seen, Manning so hogged practices that his backups over the years were truly clipboard holders. Is it Brady's fault that Cassel was a better back up than Painter was? Was it Painter's fault that Peyton audibled so many times that the Colts barely ran the play as called? You can't expect the same results from back ups who neither practice nor get game experience.Yes, Brady is a system quarterback . . . because they developed an offensive system that he can run very well. But does anyone really think that Brady would not have done well on another team and another system?

All hating aside I think Brady is an average QB in another system. If Brady got pressured like Eli Manning does he would be terrible! Brady is just like every other QB in the league, when pressured he gets very average. I have never seen a QB sit so comfortably in the pocket without moving for a majority of the time. Do you think Eli Manning after ten years run that team in NE any worse?

There is a reason Brady slid in the draft. All 32 NFL teams didnt pass on him for 5 rounds because he was THAT talented. He got placed into a scheme where they asked nothing of him and let him grow with a system that to this day is very successful. If he got drafted to the Texans the year David Carr got drafted, Brady gets put out of the league half way through the season.

 

[bostonfred]

This red herring about manning being the colts is silly. The colts folded early when manning went down, sure. But polian and irsay were openly talking about luck early in the season, and saying that they valued him more than three first round picks. It wasn't until week fifteen that polian hinted that the colts needed to win to save caldwells job, and lo and behold, they win two of their next three. If you don't think the colts were tanking to get luck, then you weren't paying attention.

 

[Zeff]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Superbowls are a team accomplishment. They are not an individual achievement and are merely a factor when determining greatness of a QB.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised by that comment. Being in the most Super Bowls automatically makes you the greatest? Seems strange. I think it's one of a number of elements going into the discussion. That said, Brady is already in the discussion for GOAT IMO, and if he wins this one it only helps his cause. But I don't ever think there will be a consensus GOAT QB like there is (for the most part) with Jerry Rice as a WR.

I don't necessarily think Brady is the GOAT at QB. But I still am interested to discuss active QBs that have better overall resumes than Tom Brady combining the entire enchilada of team accomplishments, win-loss records, SBs, honors, awards, stats, records, etc.Peyton may have been the better pure passer, but he does not stack up to Brady in some other areas. Rodgers may be the better QB at this very moment, but he too falls short in other areas. IMO, those are the only two "active" candidates unless there are players that I am missing or who are too young to really evaluate.

We learned this season that Peyton Manning is the most valuable player in the game and second place isn't close.

Brady regularly makes his team relevant at the end of January. Manning regularly makes his team relevant at the end of December.

 

[Silver & Black]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

My post was mostly tongue in cheek. I obviously hate the Patriots but think Brady is clearly the cream of the crop for QB's, both at present and perhaps of all time.That said, the whole spygate thing just bugs me to no end. To me, there is a fine line between "cheating" and gamesmanship. I liken it to baseball. I have no problem with coaches from one team looking across the dugout and trying to steal signs. That's part of the game. But if they post a spy in the stands with binoculars and a camera and try to steal them, I think that is too far and is cheating.Moving back to football, I don't doubt many teams do things that are not within the rules. However, bringing someone in to video the opponents walk thrus and to try and steal plays and signals is just way beyond the line, in my opinion. I guess it depends on what other types of things you are talking about.

 

[ivnabru]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

Again, the fact that the Patriots were better prepared for a major catastrophe at QB while the Colts were not isn't Brady's fault. From all I have seen, Manning so hogged practices that his backups over the years were truly clipboard holders. Is it Brady's fault that Cassel was a better back up than Painter was? Was it Painter's fault that Peyton audibled so many times that the Colts barely ran the play as called? You can't expect the same results from back ups who neither practice nor get game experience.Yes, Brady is a system quarterback . . . because they developed an offensive system that he can run very well. But does anyone really think that Brady would not have done well on another team and another system?

All hating aside I think Brady is an average QB in another system. If Brady got pressured like Eli Manning does he would be terrible! Brady is just like every other QB in the league, when pressured he gets very average. I have never seen a QB sit so comfortably in the pocket without moving for a majority of the time. Do you think Eli Manning after ten years run that team in NE any worse?

There is a reason Brady slid in the draft. All 32 NFL teams didnt pass on him for 5 rounds because he was THAT talented. He got placed into a scheme where they asked nothing of him and let him grow with a system that to this day is very successful. If he got drafted to the Texans the year David Carr got drafted, Brady gets put out of the league half way through the season.

You're crazy.Brady might never had made it in a different system. Who knows. But to think Brady today with his experience and talent would be an average QB somewhere else is crazy.

 

[cstu]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

I do think losing a 2nd straight SB post-Spygate will put a big black mark on his legacy.

 

[Devine Intervention]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

Again, the fact that the Patriots were better prepared for a major catastrophe at QB while the Colts were not isn't Brady's fault. From all I have seen, Manning so hogged practices that his backups over the years were truly clipboard holders. Is it Brady's fault that Cassel was a better back up than Painter was? Was it Painter's fault that Peyton audibled so many times that the Colts barely ran the play as called? You can't expect the same results from back ups who neither practice nor get game experience.Yes, Brady is a system quarterback . . . because they developed an offensive system that he can run very well. But does anyone really think that Brady would not have done well on another team and another system?

All hating aside I think Brady is an average QB in another system. If Brady got pressured like Eli Manning does he would be terrible! Brady is just like every other QB in the league, when pressured he gets very average. I have never seen a QB sit so comfortably in the pocket without moving for a majority of the time.

Do you think Eli Manning after ten years run that team in NE any worse?

There is a reason Brady slid in the draft. All 32 NFL teams didnt pass on him for 5 rounds because he was THAT talented. He got placed into a scheme where they asked nothing of him and let him grow with a system that to this day is very successful. If he got drafted to the Texans the year David Carr got drafted, Brady gets put out of the league half way through the season.

You're crazy.Brady might never had made it in a different system. Who knows. But to think Brady today with his experience and talent would be an average QB somewhere else is crazy.

I more meant that in starting from a different system. But I do think that if he got traded to Cleveland today, they are contenders. Bottom line. If Manning got traded there healthy, absolutely they are.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

Years later, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens are still heavily criticized for their steroid use, even though most of us know that many others players also took them, but simply were never caught.

 

[ivnabru]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

I do think losing a 2nd straight SB post-Spygate will put a big black mark on his legacy.

I think it depends on the rest of his career. If he never wins a Superbowl post-spygate that will hurt him and he'll probably be remembered as a top 5 but not the #1. Elway/Marino type who are no longer in the best ever conversations.If he wins a Superbowl this year or sometime in the rest of his career I think he'll be in the best ever conversation. Especially if Peyton doesn't come back because he'll likely get pretty close to Marino's stats.

 

[David Yudkin]

All hating aside I think Brady is an average QB in another system. If Brady got pressured like Eli Manning does he would be terrible! Brady is just like every other QB in the league, when pressured he gets very average. I have never seen a QB sit so comfortably in the pocket without moving for a majority of the time. Do you think Eli Manning after ten years run that team in NE any worse? There is a reason Brady slid in the draft. All 32 NFL teams didnt pass on him for 5 rounds because he was THAT talented. He got placed into a scheme where they asked nothing of him and let him grow with a system that to this day is very successful. If he got drafted to the Texans the year David Carr got drafted, Brady gets put out of the league half way through the season.

It certainly is easy to say Brady would be nothing on another team because . . . he hasn't played on another team so we have no way to argue how he would do without any evidence to support it.The other thing that I think is humorous is that some folks are saying Eli will be a HOFer out of this whole deal (which he very well could) based mostly on two seasons in which the Giants lost 13 regular season games. By comparison, Brady's Pats lost 13 games combined in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011.Yes, it's a team sport, but some folks around here argue it's all about how many rings a player has . . . but then say Brady was not a key cog to the Pats early on and hold that against him. Others argue that awards and hardware count more . . . but then say Brady didn't win anything when he started winning awards. Others say stats count the most . . . and Brady has had several excellent statistical seasons, but he somehow was a compiler. Others still suggest "his defense" has been carrying him for years (when the past few years the defense has been very ordinary if not worse). Or that his coach is the reason the Pats are winning. At what point will people ever give any credit to Brady?Would the Pats have been the same with another QB? How can we possibly answer that? If people actually watched the Pats over time, there are many times where Brady puts the ball exactly where it needs to be, makes smart decisions, and doesn't turn the ball over while still not playing conservatively. Yes, he has had times where he had all day to throw, but he's had plenty of times where he made passes under duress in clutch moments. Yes, he avoids contact at times, but there are a lot of plays in a game, so throwing the ball away to fight another play doesn't exactly mean he's a bad QB. Guys can be tough and still make dumb mistakes.

 

[ivnabru]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Thats cherry picking if I ever seen it. Why do you compare to Brady's best season? The next year AFTER Cassel the Patriots dropped to 10-6 with basically the exact same roster. So in that comparison was Cassel better? How about you compare Brady's first year to Cassel's first year? Or how about Brady's average?Ave per year:

Brady - 3,999 yrds 30 tds 11.5 ints roughly 12-4 record

Cassel- 3,692 yrds 21 tds 11.0 ints 11-5 record

Ave per year:

Manning - 4217 yrds 30 tds 15 ints roughly 11-5 record

2011 IND QBs - 2995 yrds 11 tds 12 ints 2-14 record

Are you really gonna say its kind of close??

The 2001 Patriots are not the same team as the 2008 Patriots. And to argue otherwise is idiotic.I'm going to ignore most of your points because I think you either don't understand or you're a homer and can't look at things through an unbiased lens.

2007 Patriots 589 points scored, 2008 Patriots 410 points scored. The reason it's hard to compare to 2009 is because Brady wasn't over his injury. He was playing scared. The last 2 years the Pats have scored 510+ both seasons but the personnel has changed enough that it's not a fair comparison. Also why 2006 isn't fair.

2010 Colts 435 points scored, 2011 Colts 243 points scored.

They both had a drop off of about 190 points on the season they lost their top QB. The Colts lost 192, the Pats 189.

Again, the fact that the Patriots were better prepared for a major catastrophe at QB while the Colts were not isn't Brady's fault. From all I have seen, Manning so hogged practices that his backups over the years were truly clipboard holders. Is it Brady's fault that Cassel was a better back up than Painter was? Was it Painter's fault that Peyton audibled so many times that the Colts barely ran the play as called? You can't expect the same results from back ups who neither practice nor get game experience.Yes, Brady is a system quarterback . . . because they developed an offensive system that he can run very well. But does anyone really think that Brady would not have done well on another team and another system?

All hating aside I think Brady is an average QB in another system. If Brady got pressured like Eli Manning does he would be terrible! Brady is just like every other QB in the league, when pressured he gets very average. I have never seen a QB sit so comfortably in the pocket without moving for a majority of the time.

Do you think Eli Manning after ten years run that team in NE any worse?

There is a reason Brady slid in the draft. All 32 NFL teams didnt pass on him for 5 rounds because he was THAT talented. He got placed into a scheme where they asked nothing of him and let him grow with a system that to this day is very successful. If he got drafted to the Texans the year David Carr got drafted, Brady gets put out of the league half way through the season.

You're crazy.Brady might never had made it in a different system. Who knows. But to think Brady today with his experience and talent would be an average QB somewhere else is crazy.

I more meant that in starting from a different system. But I do think that if he got traded to Cleveland today, they are contenders. Bottom line. If Manning got traded there healthy, absolutely they are.

Oh, I don't know what would have been. I think Brady has a top-tier work ethic so that helps his chances (assuming he would have been given a starting chance at some point). But who knows. The guy he is now is obviously one of the best in the league at his spot if not the best.

 

[FUBAR]

With these "GOAT" discussions, I usually look for a reason the player isn't the GOAT.

I can't find an objective reason why Brady isn't.. And I can find reasons he surpasses all others.

I don't buy into the "if he had played for another team" arguments, as they're entirely hypothetical with no real evidence to support them.

So, yes. IMO, Tom Brady is the Greatest QB in NFL history. What else would you want him to do?

 

[David Yudkin]

With these "GOAT" discussions, I usually look for a reason the player isn't the GOAT.

I can't find an objective reason why Brady isn't.. And I can find reasons he surpasses all others.

I don't buy into the "if he had played for another team" arguments, as they're entirely hypothetical with no real evidence to support them.

So, yes. IMO, Tom Brady is the Greatest QB in NFL history. What else would you want him to do?

I look at things somewhat similar, but I never really get into which individual guy is the GOAT. I look to see if a guy is worthy of being in the discussion of GOAT, and if the guy has a legit case to enter the discussion, that's good enough for me. Realistically, if I were a coach had to chose from Brady, Peyton, Montana, Unitas, etc. to be a QB on my team, I really don't care which guy I would end up with. Give me the last guy remaining for all I care.

 

[Devine Intervention]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Its funny looking at Cassels last eight full games after he starting getting comfortable with THE SYSTEM and then projecting that over the year....4550 yrds 28 tds with 340 rushing. 30.something pts a game for 488 a year.

One of which was against the #1 ranked defense in points against and yards against in Pitt where they only scored 10.

And another against Indy who had the #7 ranked defense in Pts against.

Imagine what his stats would have looked like in 2009???

How is this not clearly obvious, this kid doesnt start since highschool and by the end of his first season starting he is already looking like a all star!

 

[Zeff]

With these "GOAT" discussions, I usually look for a reason the player isn't the GOAT.

I can't find an objective reason why Brady isn't.. And I can find reasons he surpasses all others.

I don't buy into the "if he had played for another team" arguments, as they're entirely hypothetical with no real evidence to support them.

So, yes. IMO, Tom Brady is the Greatest QB in NFL history. What else would you want him to do?

Win fewer playoff games so his SB record would improve.

 

[cheese]

I more meant that in starting from a different system. But I do think that if he got traded to Cleveland today, they are contenders. Bottom line. If Manning got traded there healthy, absolutely they are.

The healthy part is questionable, but the rest of it we may find out next year. If not Cleveland, likely someone similar.

 

[Kanil]

I voted no. I think Marino is the GOAT. Had he been on the Cowboys or Niners he'd easily be regarded as the GOAT by most everyone.

PS - I do think Brady has surpassed Montana but I wouldn't but Montana in my top 5... maybe not even the top 10.

 

[Dentist]

I think Marino is the GOAT.

I think this also, but it's not possible to even have that type of discussion with anyone because of the lack of rings and the fact that the pass happy rules era has taken away a lot of his statistics.But that's ok.It is nice if one person can blow away everyone else enough that there is no debate. Like in the case of MJ for basketball... any argument against him being the GOAT is pretty easily blown away.. the only contender is possibly Kareem.it would be nice if Brady played until he was 38, got all the records, got a 5th ring, and we would never have to have this argument again.it's disappointing the Pats didn't win that '07 superbowl because i felt like in my mind that would've cinched best ever right then and there with the perfect season. And it's an even worse shame the '08 team didn't get a chance to get retribution.oh well..

 

[General Tso]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

 

[Tau837]

The OP does not list all honors/awards for both Brady and Montana; they are very close, but they favor Montana as of today.The OP does not compare playoff performance other than wins and losses. Playoff numbers (yards, TDs, rating, etc.) favor Montana, and it's not that close.I posted that stuff in another thread recently.As of today, I still view Unitas and Montana as the best QBs of all time. But Brady is very close.

Posted this in the other Brady thread:

Montana (6086 total yards, 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating in 23 games) was quite a bit better in the postseason than Brady (4848 total yards, 36 passing TDs, 17 interceptions, 89.1 passer rating in 20 games).Montana also has a very slight edge in awards, although they are amazingly similar there:Montana: 2 MVPs, 3 SBMVPs, 1 POY, 1 OPOY, 1 CPOY, 3 1st team All Pro selections, 2 2nd team All Pro selections, 8 Pro Bowl selectionsBrady: 2 MVPs, 2 SBMVPs, 1 POY, 2 OPOYs, 1 CPOY, 2 1st team All Pro selections, 1 2nd team All Pro selection, 7 Pro Bowl selectionsThe numbers are very close and will almost certainly end up favoring Brady where they don't already. If Brady maintains a high level play for at least a couple more seasons and ultimately wins another Super Bowl, he will deserve to join Montana and Unitas in the top tier of all time QBs.

 

[ivnabru]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Its funny looking at Cassels last eight full games after he starting getting comfortable with THE SYSTEM and then projecting that over the year....4550 yrds 28 tds with 340 rushing. 30.something pts a game for 488 a year.

One of which was against the #1 ranked defense in points against and yards against in Pitt where they only scored 10.

And another against Indy who had the #7 ranked defense in Pts against.

Imagine what his stats would have looked like in 2009???

How is this not clearly obvious, this kid doesnt start since highschool and by the end of his first season starting he is already looking like a all star!

And 2 years later he was a probowler with 3116 yds, 27 TDs and 7 INTs and a 93 QB Rating with the Chiefs. Maybe Matt Cassel isn't such a bad QB?

 

[Johnny Blood]

Brady: GOAT or GOATEST QB?

 

[Smack Tripper]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

 

[cstu]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

I do think losing a 2nd straight SB post-Spygate will put a big black mark on his legacy.

I think it depends on the rest of his career. If he never wins a Superbowl post-spygate that will hurt him and he'll probably be remembered as a top 5 but not the #1. Elway/Marino type who are no longer in the best ever conversations.If he wins a Superbowl this year or sometime in the rest of his career I think he'll be in the best ever conversation. Especially if Peyton doesn't come back because he'll likely get pretty close to Marino's stats.

He's getting close to the end of his career and there's a good chance he never gets back to another SB so this is moment to silence the doubters.

 

[Phlash]

He wont even be the greatest active QB

I'd be interested to hear which active QB will play in 5 Super Bowls. Enlighten us.

Whoops...I appear to be in the wrong thread. Didn't realize this was the best coach/team/franchise thread.All you need to look at to realize Peyton > Brady is the team record without their QBs.

This year's Colts team was one of the worst of all time without Manning. With him, the same team won 10 games every season for the last decade or so.

Without Brady, under a terrible QB (Cassel), the Patriots won what...10 games?

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

Excluding Orlovsky who went 2-3 and beat decent teams the Colts had 2 QBs who had ratings in the mid 60s.Matt Cassel came in with an 89.4 rating, probably not a fluke since 2 years later when he played in the Probowl he finished with a 93.

Not to mention the Pats won 5 less games and the Colts won 8 less. It's a difference but not as big as you make it sound. Only 3 wins.

By the way assuming Orlovsky won 40% of his games like he did over the 5 he started he would have led them to 6.4 wins. Only a loss of 3.6 from last season. Which would have been better than Cassell did for New England.

Its funny looking at Cassels last eight full games after he starting getting comfortable with THE SYSTEM and then projecting that over the year....4550 yrds 28 tds with 340 rushing. 30.something pts a game for 488 a year.

One of which was against the #1 ranked defense in points against and yards against in Pitt where they only scored 10.

And another against Indy who had the #7 ranked defense in Pts against.

Imagine what his stats would have looked like in 2009???

How is this not clearly obvious, this kid doesnt start since highschool and by the end of his first season starting he is already looking like a all star!

And 2 years later he was a probowler with 3116 yds, 27 TDs and 7 INTs and a 93 QB Rating with the Chiefs. Maybe Matt Cassel isn't such a bad QB?

...but that would be admitting that BB is a good evaluator of talent and haters can't have that.

 

[Dexter Manley]

In these types of discussions, I tend to look at things one guy can do or has accomplished, that the other guy can't do or couldn't accomplish.

For example, Montana's mobility and scrambling ability is something Brady clearly can't match. I think Montana would have given the Patriots a better chance to win vs the Giants in their last Super Bowl, mostly due to this. If Montana played in his prime for the Patriots all of these years, I think the Pats would actually have been better some of those years (the early super bowls for ne).

Contrast that with putting Brady on those 49ers teams instead of Montana. I think SF would have generally been just as good of team, but not better in any of those years (note I'm not including years where these guys were injured in my comparisons).

What puts Montana over the top of Brady is his AFC championship game season with the Chiefs. I don't think there's any way the Chiefs duplicate their success that season if an older Brady (think a few years from now) was the qb instead of Montana.

 

[Mario Kart]

Brady is fighting for the rights of the #2 spot.

Favre is #1.

 

[Bossman]

How do "Team" accomplishments make a player the Greatest of all Time?

... not to mention;

Greatest of all time doesn't mis Gronk wide open for an easy 7 yesterday.

Greatest of all time doesn't try to force the ball into double coverage to a no name WR with a 4th qtr lead and good field position.

Marino and P.Manning were both better QB's imo.

You could make a case for Belichick here ... but not Brady.

 

[Fire the Fat Man]

Spygate so no

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why don't all these arguments apply to Belichick being the greatest coach of all time?

And why isn't Bart Starr in this discussion? 5-0 in championships, .900 playoff winning percentage, 104.8 QB rating back when DBs could literally hold WRs.

 

[cstu]

Why don't all these arguments apply to Belichick being the greatest coach of all time?



And why isn't Bart Starr in this discussion? 5-0 in championships, .900 playoff winning percentage, 104.8 QB rating back when DBs could literally hold WRs.

Most of the years Starr played the Packers were dead last in passing attempts. It didn't take a great QB to hand off to Jim Taylor.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No.

No.

No.

 

[Tau837]

Why don't all these arguments apply to Belichick being the greatest coach of all time?

They do. I think there is a solid argument for BB being the best coach of all time.1. He's reached more Super Bowls than any coach. He has won 3, and maybe will have 4 in a couple weeks.2. He has won 3 COY awards.3. He has a 17-6 postseason record. Is that the best in modern history?4. The modern history element is important. BB has done this in the free agency era and in an era of 32 teams. A lot of older coaching greats didn't have to deal with free agency and played in smaller leagues in which the talent could be more concentrated.5. IMO coaches considered for the HOF should be given credit for their assistant coaching, where applicable. For Belicheck:5a. He won 2 Super Bowls as the Giants defensive coordinator (where he also coached their linebackers, one of the best linebacking corps of all time).5b. He won an AFC championship as the Pats defensive coordinator.5c. He was assistant head coach of the Jets when they posted their franchise best record and reached the AFC championship game.BB didn't necessarily innovate as much as some others (e.g., Paul Brown, Bill Walsh), and Spygate is a negative. But it's a pretty compelling case.

 

[GoFishTN]

Why don't all these arguments apply to Belichick being the greatest coach of all time?

Losing record without Brady. Yes, Cleveland counts.Next.

 

[Tanner9919]

While Brady is good, I can't put him ahead of guys like Bradshaw or Montana..or others..

and I certainly cannot put him ahead of Bart Starr, who without a doubt was the greatest QB of all time , not named

Otto Graham.

in 10 postseason games, Starr went 9-1, completed 61% of his passes, 15TD/3INT, his 104.8 rating is the second highest playoff passer rating of ALL-TIME, second only to Aaron Rodgers, his y/pa was a decent 8.23..

2 SB wins, 2 SB MVP's, 5 time NFL Champion, including 3 Championships in a row, something not even Brady, Montana, Elway have ever done.....

Otto Graham was a 4 time AAFC Champion, 3 time NFL Champion, 3 time UPI NFL MVP,AAFC MVP, 9-time NFL All-Pro, 5-time Pro Bowl..in EACH of his 10 seasons in Cleveland, Graham led his team to the championship game - 10 consecutive Championship Games, winning 7 of them..

Brady, Montana, Elway can't hold this guys jock strap..

yeah sure it's a different era, I get all of that, but if we're throwing out the silly "GOAT" thing, last time I checked, all-time means 'all-time',i.e., since NFL began, so yes, it includes the 50's,60s,70s,80s,etc..

in that case, Starr and Graham are the best ever,hands down.

between Montana and Brady -

well, first of all, where is Terry Bradshaw in that argument?? - another 4-time SB winning QB..

second of all, Brady needs to win his 4th SB to be considered, because 3-1 is less than 4-0, and 3-5 is less than 4-0..

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..